Briefly restate your problem space, methodology, and research questions as you posted and refined them from the previous discussion question in this topic. Considering these components, what is your proposed core design (Note: Focus on the design not the methodology in your response.)? Why have you chosen this particular design? How does the design align with your problem space, methodology, and research questions? What are some advantages and limitations of this design? What other considerations do you have for defending your choice of design for your proposed dissertation topic? Including References.
2
Refining Adaptive Learning Technologies in Classroom Environments: A Methodological Approach
Guerline Pierre Joseph
Dr. Jacobs
GCU/Education
RES-831
8/14/2024
Refining Adaptive Learning Technologies in Classroom Environments: A Methodological Approach
In the course of my doctoral program, combined with the valuable comments from my peers, I have fine-tuned my dissertation focus to consider the integration of adaptive learning technologies in traditional classrooms. My initial focus was generally on educational technology. As I dug further into the literature and participated in scholarly debates, I realized the critical need to know how adaptive learning systems might be successfully applied to improve student outcomes while addressing the complexity of various learning needs. This process of improvement has guided me to a more focused investigation of the possibilities and difficulties adaptive learning technology available in K–12 and higher education environments offer. Discussions with my peers also underlined the need to address problems of equity and accessibility while using these technologies.
Refined Problem Statement
Based on this refined focus and the problem space identified in my previous work, I have formulated the following problem statement: "Currently, there is a lack of information on how effective use of the adaptive learning technologies can be integrated with face-to-face teaching to enhance student learning achievements and to meet individual learning needs in different contexts and subjects." This problem statement embodies the broad area of concepts that I want to address in my study regarding the implementation of adaptive learning technologies for learners and instructors.
Potential Methodology
I have decided to adopt a qualitative research approach in my proposed dissertation study. This choice is based on the nature of the study and the type of data that needs to be accumulated and used while solving the research problem.
Justification for Qualitative Methodology
To this end, the choice of a qualitative research method approach for this study is anchored on several considerations fundamental to the characteristics, the rigor of the research problem under investigation, and the depth of understanding needed to address it appropriately.
Firstly, the problem statement focuses more on the 'how' aspect of adopting adaptive learning technologies in classrooms. In this regard, the emphasized focus on processes, experiences, and contextual factors is consonant with the qualitative methods of research. According to Creswell and Poth (2024), qualitative research is especially appropriate when capturing phenomena in their natural contexts and understanding how the various individuals or groups construct the different phenomena.
Adaptive learning technologies, when implemented in classroom settings, engage different stakeholders (the students, instructors, and school leaders) and are affected by several factors (including school climate, technology support, and expectations of curricula). Therefore, there is a need for a qualitative approach that will enable the exploration of these various viewpoints and the manner in which technology intertwines with pedagogy. Kabudi et al. (2021) argue that qualitative research can generate in-depth contextual information that is particularly useful when exploring the paradigm of technology-enhanced learning.
Furthermore, the problem statement stresses the requirement to respond to 'diverse learner needs in different contexts of education.' Essentially, the choice of qualitative approach is justified by its focus on description and context, which would enable capturing the specificity of educational contexts and the experiences of learners and teachers. This is consistent with Harati et al.'s (2021) survey on students' experience and perception of adaptive learning systems, where the authors used the qualitative approach to identify significant factors that the quantitative view might not expose.
The use of qualitative methodology also fits the nature of the research problem as exploratory in nature. Since the extent to which adaptive learning technologies can be integrated into traditional classrooms is a relatively new research topic, qualitative research helps identify the primary themes and discuss the findings that might not have been anticipated in advance. Such flexibility is important, especially when analyzing modern learning technologies, as Gligorea et al. (2023) mentioned in their adaptive learning overview.
Justification for Not Selecting Quantitative Methodology
Adopting a quantitative methodology has its benefits, particularly in finding relationships and quantifying the results and trends, yet it is not fit for the current research problem. The main reason for not adopting a quantitative approach is that the problem has not been defined in terms of establishing the extent or degree of integration and the related factors but rather the identification of the process and the factors affecting it. According to Yin (2018), when the research questions involve the use of "how" and "why," qualitative methods of data collection are relevant in most cases.
Quantitative methods, on the other hand, are very good at identifying statistical correlations and hypothesis testing. However, they may not give a sufficient discussion of the issues surrounding the implementation of adaptive learning technologies in different classrooms. Since the relationships between technology, pedagogy, and learning contexts underpinning this research problem are complex, approaches grounded in qualitative research are more appropriate. Moreover, in many learning environments, the application of adaptive learning technologies is still in its infancy, which means there may not be enough metrics or large-scale examples to be used for quantitative analysis. In the review of adaptive learning progress and challenges identified by Li et al. (2021), the authors pointed out that many aspects of adaptive learning implementation are still in the exploratory phases so that qualitative approaches remain more appropriate for early investigations.
Quantitative research paradigms could conceivably be applied to assess the consequences of implementing adaptive learning technologies (e. g., tests, participation rates) but are not well-suited to examine the processes, issues, and conditions that define the integration of such technologies – an area of concern based on the problem statement.
Conclusion
Thus, the use of qualitative research methodology in the context of the current research problem is based on the need to study the processes under study and their contexts in detail, emphasizing multiple viewpoints on the subject. This approach is consistent with the exploratory character of the study and the requirement of obtaining data that would capture the contexts for which adaptive learning technologies are expected to be integrated into classroom settings. Although information obtained through quantitative methods is useful in many contexts of educational research, the current focus on how these technologies are best employed makes a qualitative method more appropriate for addressing the posed problem and providing meaningful knowledge to the field of educational technology and adaptive learning.
References
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (5th Ed.) Sage publications.
Gligorea, I., Cioca, M., Oancea, R., Gorski, A. T., Gorski, H., & Tudorache, P. (2023). Adaptive Learning Using Artificial Intelligence in e-Learning: A Literature Review. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121216
Harati, H., Sujo-Montes, L., Tu, C. H., Armfield, S. J., & Yen, C. J. (2021). Assessment and learning in knowledge spaces (ALEKS) adaptive system impacts students' perception and self-regulated learning skills. Education Sciences, 11(10), 603. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100603
Kabudi, T., Pappas, I., & Olsen, D. H. (2021). AI-enabled adaptive learning systems: A systematic mapping of the literature. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100017
Li, F., He, Y., & Xue, Q. (2021). Progress, challenges, and countermeasures of adaptive learning. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 238-255. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202107_24(3).0017
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
,
TableData
Table 2.1 Overview of Main Research Methodologies, With Common Methods (used with permission) [Acknowledgment: Deep, deep thanks to Dr. Anne MacCleave, Professor Emerita
(MSVU), for vetting and validating the core concepts contained in this table]
Research Paradigm Positivistic Postpositivistic
Research Methodology Quantitative and Empirically Based Qualitative
Qualitative
Empirical (Scientific)
Interpretive (Humanistic)
Critical (Power)
Intent of Inquiry Explore, describe, predict, control, and explain
Understand Emancipate
AXIOMS
Epistemology
(What counts as knowledge and ways of knowing [criteria for evaluating knowledge]? How should we study the world? What is meaningful evidence or
– The one truth is out there waiting to be discovered via the scientific method
– Strive for certainties, laws of behaviors, and principles
– Truth is created, and there is more than one truth; knowledge relies on humans’ interpretations of their world
– Strive for confidence
– Truth is grounded in the context
– Knowledge is grounded in social and historical practices
– Knowledge is
insights? How does knowledge arise?
that provide explanations leading to predictions and control of phenomena
– Knowledge is objective (bias- free)
– Knowledge is dualistic (fragmented and not connected); mind and matter are separate
– Only knowledge generated using the scientific method is valid
– Only things that can be seen (observed or experimented) are worthy of study
– Knowledge comes from using the scientific method (experiments or
– Knowledge is constructed by people
– Agreed-upon knowledge in one culture may not be valid in another culture
– Takes into account social and cultural influences on knowledge creation
– Knowledge is subjective or intersubjective and includes perspectives
– Research is often perspective- seeking, not truth-seeking
– There are many ways of knowing aside from the scientific method (e.g., stories, spiritual experiences, religion, the
emancipatory, created through critically questioning the way things “have always been done”
– Knowledge is about hidden power structures that permeate society
– Knowledge is dialectic (transformative), consensual, and normative
– Knowledge is about the world, the way things really are, and is subject to change
nonexperimental methods)
sacred, the mystical, wisdom, art, drama, dreams, music)
– Knowledge can be cognitive, feelings, or embodied
Ontology
(What should be the object of the study? What is human nature? What does it mean to be human? What counts as a meaningful statement about reality? How do people make choices? What is the nature of reality? How can reality be meaningfully portrayed?)
– Reality is out there; the world is a universe of facts waiting to be discovered
– There is a single reality made of discrete elements: When we find them all through the scientific method, we have a full picture of reality
– A single reality exists that people cannot see
– A fact is a fact; it cannot be
– Reality is in here (in people’s minds and/or collectively constructed)
– Social reality is relative to the observer, and everyday concepts need to be understood to appreciate this reality
– The focus is on the life-world and shared meanings and understandings of that world
– Reality is socially
– Reality is here and now (it is material, actually of the world, not imagined)
– Reality is shaped by ethnic, cultural, gender, social, and political values, and mediated by power relations
– Reality is constructed within this social-historical context
– Humans are not confined to
interpreted
– The true nature of reality can only be obtained by testing theories
– Seeing is believing
– Laws of nature can be derived from scientific data
– Human nature is determined by things people are not aware of and have no control over
– Humans are passive, malleable, and controllable
– Reality is determined by the environment, inherited potential, or the interaction of the two
constructed via the lived experiences of people
– Human nature is determined by how people see themselves
– Humans are active and self- creating
– Human beings can act intentionally (need capacity and opportunity)
– Reality can be a product of people’s minds or the interactions of persons
– Reality constitutes that which is constructed by individuals in interaction within their contexts and with other people
– Reality is conditional upon
one particular state or set of conditions; things can change
– Human beings have the capacity to exercise control over social arrangements and institutions: They can create a new reality
– Humans who are oppressed are able to emancipate themselves and challenge the status quo
– Reality is never fully understood and is deeply shaped by power
– Seek to truly understand the real circumstances (i.e., the political, social, and institutional
– Reality is external to our consciousness (not a product of our minds)
human experiences
structures) in order to change the power balance
Logic
(How do people come to their understandings? What is acceptable as rigor and inference in the development of arguments, judgments, insights, revelations, or social action?)
– Deductive, rational, formal logic
– Through objective observation, experts form research questions and hypotheses and empirically test them
– Concerned with prediction, control, and explanation
– Clear distinction between facts and values
– Strive to generalize universal laws
– The goal of
– Inductive logic, attempting to find various interpretations of reality and recognize patterns that govern and guide human behavior
– Assumes researchers can help people become aware of their unconscious thoughts
– Concerned with meanings and understandings so people can live together; how people make sense of their world
– Meaningful findings are more valuable than
– Inductive logic, aimed at emancipation
– Attempt to reveal ideologies and power relationships, leading to self- empowerment and emancipation
– Concerned with the relationship between meanings and autonomy and with responsibility as citizens
– Concerned with critiquing and changing society
research is replication and theory testing, leading to control, predictions, and explanations
generalizations
– The goal is to understand lived experiences from the point of view of those living them
– The goal of research is a credible representation of the interpretations of those experiencing the phenomenon under study
– The intent is to create contextualized findings
– The goal of research is to reveal power relationships leading to changes in the status quo and more autonomy, inclusion, and justice
– Determine sources of oppression (whether internal or external)
– Focus on complex generative mechanisms that are not readily observable (e.g., it is hard to observe consciousness raising)
Axiology – Values-neutral – Values-laden – Values-
(What is the role of values and perceptions? The role of researchers and participants? How is what is studied influenced by the researcher and the participants? What is the relationship between the researcher and the participants?)
(often ignored)
– Moral issues are beyond empirical investigation
– No place for bias, values, feelings, perceptions, hopes, or expectations of either researcher or participant
– Researcher tries to control for anything that can contaminate the study
– The relationship between researcher and participant is objective and dualistic (separate with no interchange)
– The intent is to uncover the beliefs, customs, and so forth that shape human behavior
– Bias, feelings, hopes, expectations, perceptions, and values are central to the research process
– Participants play a central role in the research, even instigating it
– The perspective of the “insiders” supercedes that of the researcher
– The role of the researcher is to uncover conscious and unconscious explanations people have for their life through dialogue with and among participants
oriented and values-driven
– Researchers’ proactive values concerning social justice are central to the research
– The intent is to critically examine unquestioned values, beliefs, and norms to reveal power
– The researcher works in collaboration with citizen interlocutors as conversational partners in dialogue
– The researcher seeks to understand the effects of power so as to help people empower themselves
– The very participatory
– The relationship between the researcher and participants is intense, prolonged, and dialogic (deep insights through interaction)
research process is grounded in terms of the insiders’ perspective, respecting that researchers have contributing expertise (balance both)
– The role of the researcher is to challenge insiders with expert research findings leading to self-reflection and emancipation
– The intent is to create change in society by emancipating citizens to take action
– The relationship between researcher and participants is dialogic, transactional, and dialectic (transformative)
Methods Common to Each Methodology
(Appreciating the mixed methods methodology, which employs quantitative and qualitative approaches in the same study)
Seeking causality, laws, and relations via:
Quantitative:
Experiments
Quasi- experiments
Field experiments
Surveys
Seeking relations and regularities via:
Qualitative:
Quasi- experiments
Field experiments
Surveys
Ethnoscience (new ethnography)
Ethnography
Seeking theory, meanings, and patterns via:
Phenomenology
Case studies
Content analysis
Grounded theory
Natural/ interpretive inquiry
Discourse analysis
Thematic analysis
Document analysis
Seeking meanings and interpretations via:
Case studies
Discourse analysis
Ethical inquiry
Seeking reflection, emancipation, and problem solving via:
Action research
Discourse analysis
Participatory research
Critical analysis
Feminist inquiry
Reflective phenomenology
Phenomenology
Case studies
Content analysis
Life history study
Narrative research
Hermeneutic inquiry
Heuristic inquiry
,
Sage Research Methods
Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical
Guide
For the most optimal reading experience we recommend using our website.
A free-to-view version of this content is available by clicking on this link, which
includes an easy-to-navigate-and-search-entry, and may also include videos,
embedded datasets, downloadable datasets, interactive questions, audio
content, and downloadable tables and resources.
Author: Sue L. T. McGregor
Pub. Date: 2019
Product: Sage Research Methods
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802656
Methods: Theory, Research questions, Mixed methods
Keywords: knowledge
Disciplines: Sociology, Education, Psychology, Health, Anthropology, Social Policy and Public Policy, Social
Work, Political Science and International Relations, Geography
Access Date: October 15, 2024
Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
City: Thousand Oaks
Online ISBN: 9781071802656
© 2019 SAGE Publications, Inc All Rights Reserved.
Research Methodologies
Learning Objectives
• Appreciate the history of key methodological terms
• Recognize the necessity of being able to defend any methodological choices made at the interface
between philosophy and methods (methodologically responsible)
• Distinguish clearly between methodology and methods (as used in this book)
• Become familiar with the conceptual confusion, slippage, and clarity needed around three common
terms: research paradigm, research methodology, and research tradition
• Appreciate the methodological approach used in this book (see Table 2.1)
• Explain the construct of philosophical axioms (epistemology, ontology, logic, and axiology)
• Distinguish between positivistic and postpositivistic research paradigms
• Compare and contrast empirical, interpretive, and critical research methodologies
• Compare and contrast quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods methodologies
• Explain why it is necessary to match research methodology with the research question
• Understand the conventions for writing the research methodology section of a paper
Introduction
Research and inquiry are about creating new knowledge (Habermas, 1984). Philosophy is the study of the
fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence—its truths, principles, and assumptions (Anderson,
2014). This book is premised on the assumption that everything in research hinges on philosophical underpin-
nings. But making this point is challenging because of the proliferation of methodology-related terms arising
in the late 1970s and peaking in the early 1990s. Egon Guba is credited with initiating the paradigm dialogue
about quantitative and qualitative research (Donmoyer, 2008). Since then, researchers have witnessed the
emergence of a dizzying array of jargon used by scholars trying to address this thorny but imperative aspect
of research. This scenario is exacerbated by the fact that “many researchers lack experience [or expertise]
in deliberating about methodological issues, and the esoteric and unfamiliar language of philosophy can be
intimidating” (MacCleave, 2006, p. 9).
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 2 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
This array of methodology-related terms includes research paradigms, methodologies, methods, philosoph-
ical axioms, quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, positivism, postpositivism, empirical, interpretive, and
critical (and one can add postmodernism, poststructuralism, constructivism, naturalistic inquiry, critical real-
ism, and so on). Inconsistency in what these terms mean, alone and in relation to each other, is evident
across all disciplinary literature (Cameron, 2011). Acknowledging this state of affairs, Locke, Silverman, and
Spirduso (2010) sardonically noted that “the first tour through the research literature in your own area of in-
terest is likely to reveal more variety than you would expect” (p. 80). They even coined the term paradigmatic
subspecies (p. 80) to accommodate this diverse philosophical situation.
The result of such philosophical diversity is terminological soup or, as Buchanan and Bryman (2007, p. 486)
called it, “paradigm soup.” Actually, some of these terms have been in use for more than 400 years, adding
to this linguistic and philosophical conundrum (see Figure 2.1) (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010; Denzin & Lin-
coln, 2011; Fox, 2008; Guba, 1990; Johnson & Christensen, 2012; Lockyer, 2008; Niglas, 1999; Paley, 2008;
Smith, 1983). Nonetheless, researchers have the responsibility of explicitly identifying the methodological and
paradigmatic underpinnings of their scholarship (Maxwell, 2013).
To address this conceptual slippage, this chapter explains and justifies the approach used in this book (see
Table 2.1), knowing that not everyon